This annex contains the methodology used to identify and collect data in all 27 Member States and Croatia on:
the profiles of female victims of domestic violence and male perpetrators;
the measures to address violence against women adopted by the 27 Member States and Croatia;
the range, number, extent and actual use of support options for women experiencing intimate partner violence (IPV);
the quality of supporting options available to women;
and
the coordination of the public support system.
The analysis follows the national level, with very rare reference to regional and/or local level. The European level is addressed only when it comes to legislations and policy documents.
Part A presents the literature review and analysis of secondary sources that were used to collect data on the profiles of female victims of domestic violence and male perpetrators and on legislative and policy measures adopted by the 27 Member States and Croatia in order to address gender-based violence. Prevalence data collected through preva lence surveys and crime statistics were the main sources investigated. Comparative European reports, produced either for the European Commission, Council of Europe and United Nations were the main sources investigated.
Part B presents the collection of primary data on the range, number, extent and actual use of support options for
women victims of IPV, on the quality of the services and the coordination of the support system. The primary data were obtained through a survey and several follow-up interviews.
The online survey was based on a structured questionnaire and carried out February–March 2012, followed by more in-depth interviews with the respondents in April 2012.
Part C presents the challenges and shortcomings in the primary and secondary data collection process.
The current report uses, as a starting point, the indicators in area D of the Beijing Platform for Action (BPfA) on domestic violence against women (D1–D7) presented by the Council of the European Union in December 2002:
D1: Profile of female victims of violence
D2: Profile of male perpetrators
D3: Victim support
D4: Measures addressing the male perpetrator to end the circle of violence
D5: Training of professionals
D6: State measures to eliminate domestic violence against women
D7: Evaluation.
The specific focus of this report is a particular form of do-mestic violence: intimate partner violence (IPV) against women by men. Since the sub-indicators were presented to the Council, no data at European level were collected in order to present the situation in the 27 Member States and Croatia. This report is the first such endeavour.
Part A: Literature review and secondary sources
Prevalence surveys were collected at:
(a) national level: Annex II, Table 1.1;
(b) European level: WAVE Country Reports 2008 to 2011;
(c) international level: reports published under the Coordination Action on Human Rights Violation (CAHRV, 2006, 2006a, 2007); International Violence Against Women Survey (1997–2005) by the UN and HEUNI; UN Women (2011), Violence Against Women Prevalence Data: Surveys by Country; CoE (2010), Protecting women against violence.
Information on prevalence data was obtained from original reports of national and international prevalence surveys as well as concentrated and systematic information on Euro-pean Union surveys that were published by international re-search networks. Where original data and information from the national surveys was not available in English, publica-tions from the research networks were used. When further clarification was required, WAVE Focal Points and country experts (95) were consulted or country experts that had participated in CAHRV.
The data obtained from the prevalence surveys collected were analysed and compared in relation to the number, age and sex of respondents, and methodology, as well as the structure and contents of the questionnaires. Additionally, the prevalence data taken from the surveys were illustrated and compared in a table. Where gaps or unclear data still existed, national prevalence researchers and criminologists were con-tacted (96). The data was also compared to the UN Women VAW data and with the data collected by Hagemann-White (CoE, 2010) for the analytical study of the Council of Europe.
The focus was to present data collected since 2003. Where this was not possible, data collected earlier were presented.
Data on crime statistics were collected from publically available sources. The data obtained were analysed with regard to the structure and accuracy of data given on IPV, to the forms of violence included, and the type of informa-tion on victim and perpetrator that was available. Addiinforma-tion- Addition-ally, data on the numbers of fatalities as well as survivors of DV were collected. For further clarification, where needed, WAVE Focal Points and national experts were contacted.
To assess state measures and relevant laws, reports on perpetrator programmes and the provision of training, national action plans (NAP) were collected. Sources included:
State Reports and Shadow Reports (97) prepared for the sessions of the Committee of the Elimination of
Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) of the UN and the Committee’s concluding comments;
the UN Secretary General’s database of legislation and policies on VAW (launched in 2009) (98);
documents collected for the meetings of the Ad Hoc Committee on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence of the Council of Europe (CAHVIO, 2009a);
Directive 2011/99/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the European protection order;
Realising Rights Project (2009–11);
Feasibility study to assess the possibilities, opportunities and needs to standardise national legislation on violence against women, violence against children and sexual orientation violence (European Commission, Directorate-General for Justice, 2010a);
WAVE Focal Points provided information on recent legislative and policy developments during February–
April 2012.
A range of other material was also examined including in-depth comparative studies such as:
QUING: Quality in Gender+Equality Policies project 2006–11;
publications of the European’s Women’s Lobby;
reports produced by the Expert Group on Gender Equality and Social Inclusion, Health and Long-Term Care Issues (EGGSI) of the European Commission;
WAVE Country Reports 2008 to 2011.
Discrepancies were identified when comparing informa-tion from different sources. For example, governments’
information to the Council of Europe monitoring process, national experts’ comments to the feasibility study and the EGGSI report (2010), observatory experts’ comments to the European Women’s Lobby (EWL) Report (2011) may differ, as questions were asked in different ways in each survey, and informants vary in their areas of specific knowledge. To clarify the discrepancies and arrive at an accurate assess-ment, the full documents of DV legislation, legislation on protection orders, and national action plans were collected, in English.
The analysis of the gaps identified in the data in terms of accessibility, reliability and comparability is presented in this report in the conclusions and recommendations.
Part B: Primary data collection for support services
Information on the range, number, extent and actual use of support options for women experiencing intimate partner violence (IPV) was collected from each of the 27 Member States and Croatia through an online survey. The survey was carried out at national level and did not aim to collect information for regional or local level.
Following the list of sub-indicators presented in 2002 for indicator D3: Type of victim support, the following support options were targeted:
hotlines or helplines (i.e. 24-hour hotline etc.);
women’s crisis centres/shelters (including number of shelters per population, number of requests for shelter, number of refusals, funding of centres);
counselling centres;
emergency services (i.e. emergency health services, police, social services, etc.);
special police units/task forces supporting the victims;
legal advice for the victims;
publicly available official information (i.e. on the Internet, TV, leaflets, through other sources) regarding domestic violence against women;
support/courses/training in order to help victims re-enter the labour market;
health protocols that provide standards for screening, assessment, intervention, documentation and evaluation;
special support services for vulnerable groups (i.e.
young women and girls, LGBT, women with a migrant background, female refugees and foreigners);
guide on the available support;
support measures for perpetrators (e.g. training for perpetrators, therapy for perpetrators, others).
The survey was carried out online, using Survey Monkey as technica-l support, and was based on a questionnaire containing 84 qualitative and quantitative questions (the questionnaire is provided at the end of this chapter).
The Word version of the questionnaire was sent accompa-nying the online version. It was built on the WAVE ques-tionnaire used for collecting information on services. The questions aimed to collect information on support options for women, understood as services that provide the sup-port women survivors of IPV need. Questions on general services, general temporary accommodation and general helplines that women could access for support were also included. To address possible differences in assumptions of what constitutes a specific or a general service, definitions on the differences between general and specialist shelters and helplines were provided. The definitions were included at the beginning of each section, with examples provided.
The main focus was to collect information on the immedi-ate services women escaping violence need, such as wom-en’s national helplines, womwom-en’s shelters and womwom-en’s centre/services. Being a survey carried out at national level, only data on national health protocols were collected. In order to capture the depth of support services available, the section on women’s counselling centres was extended to include services that did not depend on women being able to phys ic ally access a women’s centre, such as Inde-pendent Domestic Violence Advisors (IDVAs). The indicator for police units was also extended to include specific staff in recognition of the role given to specialised police offic-ers in some countries.
Two questions focused on the availability of secondary data on the quality of support services. Six questions concentrated on the coordination of the public support system.
The questionnaire was tested by the WAVE research team and the EIGE project team, initially in Word format and then online. The online questionnaire was also tested by WAVE staff and volunteers and with the WAVE Focal Point in Estonia.
In each of the 27 Member States and Croatia (99), respond-ents were identified from a range of national experts, knowledge able on the situation of support options in their country. NGO experts from networks or national organisa-tions with an overview of knowledge and data on support services for women victims of DV in their country were sought. Government experts in charge of actions to com-bat VAW/gender equality were approached and asked to coordinate the govern ment response to the questionnaire and liaise with relevant government officials and depart-ments as required. Aca demic experts on the issue were also approached to give a further perspective. Where possible, they were contacted directly by the WAVE Focal Point and informed about the study and asked if they would partici-pate. A formal e-mail invitation was sent to all experts to participate in the study. The accompanying EIGE letter ex-plained the purpose of the study and the type of informa-tion needing to be collected.
Two hundred and twenty-three experts were approached in the 27 Member States and Croatia. The aim was to have an answer from at least one expert from each group in every Member State (and 12 from the UK’s four countries:
England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales). The gov-ernment experts approached identified the most appropri-ate official to coordinappropri-ate the government response and at least one government expert completed the questionnaire in every country. In Spain, a regional government expert
also responded due to their level of knowledge. In almost all Member States (except EL) and Croatia, at least one NGO expert responded and in six Member States (BG, IE, IT, MT, PT, FI), two NGO experts responded to the questionnaire.
Three NGO experts responded in the United Kingdom, even though the aim was to receive four completed ques-tionnaires. The most difficult group to obtain answers from were academic experts. In 12 Member States (BG, DK, DE, IE, EL, ES, FR, LU, PL, SK, FI, UK), even if an agreement to com-plete the questionnaire was reached, the experts failed to do so. In Malta and Portugal, two academic experts re-sponded. Only seven Member States (DK, DE, EL, FR, LU, PL, SK) had responses from fewer than three experts, but only in 15 Member States (BE, CZ, EE, IT, CY, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, AT, PT, RO, SI, SE) and Croatia did at least one expert from each group complete the questionnaire. In total, there were 32 government experts (100), 35 NGO experts and 18 academ-ics. Table 1 presents the response rate by type of expert in the Member States and Croatia.
The questionnaires were sent out at the end of Febru-ary 2012 and the experts were asked to complete it and respond within 3 weeks. Due to delays in answering, the
period was extended by 6 additional weeks. In order to ensure responses, follow-up e-mails and phone calls were made during April 2012. The data collection was completed by 30 April 2012. Twelve of the 97 questionnaires sent out were not completed. Data from the completed question-naires were entered into Excel spread sheets for reconcili-ation. Where data were missing, conflicting or clarification or supplementary information was required and was avail-able, follow-up telephone interviews were carried out with the experts to reconcile the data. Experts were informed of any contradictions and reminded of the definition for the support service, if necessary, to verify responses. Only data on gender-specific women’s shelters for women sur-vivors of IPV were counted as women’s shelters, with non-gender-specific shelters, including those providing specific support to all survivors of IPV being included in the section on general temporary accommodation. The same process was followed with national women’s helplines and general helplines and women’s centres. Gender-specific shelters or women’s centres, or services for multiple discrim ination groups that provide support for other forms of VAW were not included as this study only concerns services for wom-en survivors of IPV.
Original sources provided by experts were checked. If the data provided by the expert differed from original sources, data from the original sources were used and referenced.
The latest available data for each indicator were used. Where no data were available or contradictions remained and no original source was available, further information was sought from WAVE Focal Points, with the WAVE Country Report 2011.
Answers provided during follow-up e-mails and telephone calls were recorded and any amendments to the data noted in the country sheets. A reconciled data column was added to each country spreadsheet comprising the final data for each question. Data from the four countries of the United Kingdom was reconciled separately and then reconciled data from all four countries was combined into one United
Kingdom spreadsheet. Data from all 27 Member States and Croatia tables were then transferred into a matrix for the dif-ferent indicators and systematically analysed to compare the availability of service options.
Evaluation reports on the quality of support options (sec-ondary sources) were sought through the questionnaire, if they were available in English, French or German. Any other studies on the quality of services provided by WAVE Focal Points complemented this information. The answers showed that a limited amount of systematic national-level evalua-tion of support opevalua-tions was available in these languages and that the majority of the found reports are focused on the provision of services rather than on assessing their quality.
Table 1: Questionnaire respondents (number of experts)
Experts approached Experts agreed Completed the questionnaire
Total Government experts NGO experts Academic experts
BE 8 3 3 1 1 1
BG 9 3 3 1 2 0
CZ 9 3 3 1 1 1
DK 8 2 2 1 1 0
DE 5 3 2 1 1 0
EE 8 5 3 1 1 1
IE 9 4 3 1 2 0
EL 3 1 1 1 0 0
ES 10 3 3 2 1 0
FR 15 4 2 1 1 0
IT 9 5 4 1 2 1
CY 5 3 3 1 1 1
LV 5 4 3 1 1 1
LT 6 4 3 1 1 1
LU 6 2 2 1 1 0
HU 6 6 3 1 1 1
MT 8 6 5 1 2 2
NL 7 3 3 1 1 1
AT 7 3 3 1 1 1
PL 8 4 2 1 1 0
PT 10 5 5 1 2 2
RO 12 4 3 1 1 1
SI 7 3 3 1 1 1
SK 3 2 2 1 1 0
FI 8 4 3 1 2 0
SE 6 3 3 1 1 1
UK(*) 22 13 7 4 3 0
HR 4 3 3 1 1 1
Total 223 108 85 32 35 18
(*) For the United Kingdom, one government expert for each country and NGO experts from England, Northern Ireland and Scotland.
There were six questions on the coordination of the public support system in the questionnaire. The answers received were corroborated with information from secondary data such as national action plans, reports from the UN Secretary-General’s database on VAW and CEDAW Committee reports.
The criteria used to identify which NAPs support coordination was informed by the recommendations for good practices on
NAPs identified by the UN Expert Group (101). These included if the national action plan has a coordinating body responsible for coordinated national policies and if NGOs are part of the coordinating body and the funds allocated for the implemen-tation of the national action plan in 2010 and 2011. The pri-mary data collected in March–April 2012 went through several stages of review by the governments of the Member States.
Challenges
Despite meticulous and systematic review of prevalence data and crime statistics, minimal imprecision might be pres-ent. The current report did not aim to conduct a study on the prevalence and crime statistics: it just presents an over-view of what exists so far. Gaps in the data were identified and presented and recommendations developed.
The time frame allocated for data collection was short (March–
April 2012). Therefore, data were not collected for regional and local levels. The service providers were not contacted directly.
This represents a shortcoming of the current report as services are mainly provided at regional and local level. The informa-tion collected covers the overall situainforma-tion and provides an estimation: for a comprehensive evaluation of these services, a wide-ranging, longer-term study at the regional and local level across the 27 Member States and Croatia is needed.
Several experts were unable to obtain the data required or provide alternative sources. The main difficulty was that data were often not publically available (102). Thus, it was the case for the numbers of, or use of, certain support ser-vices at the national level, as the methods of collection varied and this made it difficult to compare. It became clear that further research is needed at the regional and local level to allow for better comparability. The availabil-ity of data on large countries with split responsibilities for services (national and regional), such as Germany, was limited (103).
The widespread collection of data and information within this study does give a clear picture of the challenges of ob-taining data on support services for women survivors of IPV across the 27 Member States and Croatia.
Online Questionnaire
EIGE’s Study on the Area D of the Beijing Platform for Action: Violence against women in the European Union Support Services for women survivors of domestic violence
Thank you for agreeing to answer this online questionnaire.
The purpose of the online questionnaire is to collect data on the range, extent and number of support options for women victims of IPV. This information is being collected by Women Against Violence Europe (WAVE) for a study for the European Institute for Gender Equality based in Vilnius, Lithuania. The study, which will cover all the 27 EU Member States and Croatia, is follow up of the implementation of
The purpose of the online questionnaire is to collect data on the range, extent and number of support options for women victims of IPV. This information is being collected by Women Against Violence Europe (WAVE) for a study for the European Institute for Gender Equality based in Vilnius, Lithuania. The study, which will cover all the 27 EU Member States and Croatia, is follow up of the implementation of